Quid est veritas?

Friday, February 1, AD 2013

Please allow me to introduce myself 
I’m a man of wealth and taste 
I’ve been around for a long, long year 
Stole many a man’s soul and faith 
And I was round when Jesus Christ 
Had his moment of doubt and pain 
Made damn sure that Pilate 
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Undoubtedly most of you are aware that Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angles has stripped Roger Cardinal Mahony of all public duties. If not, here is the story.

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez announced Thursday that Cardinal Roger Mahony would have a reduced role in the church and that Santa Barbara Bishop Thomas J. Curry has stepped down from that job amid recent revelations over their handling of the priest abuse scandal in the 1980s.

“Effective immediately, I have informed Cardinal Mahony that he will no longer have any administrative or public duties. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry has also publicly apologized for his decisions while serving as Vicar for Clergy. I have accepted his request to be relieved of his responsibility as the Regional Bishop of Santa Barbara,” Gomez wrote in a letter.

Cardinal Mahony published this private letter to Archbishop Gomez on his blog:

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Quid est veritas?

  • None too soon

  • Prison for you Mahony, nothing less.

  • Exactly what I thought. Personally, I wish prelates like this would get deposed for all the unorthodox crap they pull, ahem, like the “religious education” whathaveyous Cardinal Mahoney presided over all those years.

  • “But when I retired as the active Archbishop, I handed over to you an Archdiocese that was second to none in protecting children and youth.”
    Mahony was a rotten Cardinal and is obviously a poor excuse for a human being, but based upon that last sentence he may have a future in stand up comedy.

  • How pathetic and self-serving Mahoney’s letter is! “We were never taught in sociology classes about child abuse”–it should have been woefully evident to him as a human person and a man of God that sexual abuse of children merited the famous mill stone around the neck of the guilty one and a fling into the deepest sea. But he wasn’t taught about it…how lame is that! And he goes on to defend himself by describing lectures priests were given about this offense (as if an offender was going to heed a lecture) and boards and tribunals. Given the information that was released that so appalled Gomez, Mahoney and his bishop pal found their own ways around the boards and tribunals to hide and, effectively, protect guilty priests. This letter shows exactly what the problem is and was–Mahoney was weak and self-serving and blind to the damage these outrageous behaviors did to children. It is the least that can be done to him to forbid him public activities in which he would be honored as a prince of the Church. He is a disgraced prince who “doth protest too much.”

  • It seems to me that they “washed their hands and sealed the childrens’ fate”, when hiding information. Well, it is no “sympathy” for Christ, for sure.

    May God help the children and have mercy on all of us.

  • Only for the Cathedral, Mahony would deserve to be flogged on the public square.
    I’d say, though, that today he has reached a new low.
    An enemy of the Traditional Mass, by the way.

    If I may, my thoughts are here:


  • Actually, I think the man’s problems originate with his flawed understanding of the Eucharist:


  • Yes, I am most bothered that he would choose to begin a letter with a deflection of blame … “not prepared” by the church, shools, family …

    Few are. But it is character that leads, not experience in those moments.

  • May I only say, Mundabor, that being for or against the TLM does not make one a better or worse Catholic. Both are entirely legitimate methods of worshipping, and attending or preferring the Novus Ordo does not make one “less Catholic” and attending or preferring the TLM does not make one a “better” or “more authentic” Catholic.

    Other than that, I sincerely hope that Mahony loses his red hat and vote at the next papal conclave. If you or I did what he did, we would be in jail.

  • Quid est veritas? Rather WHO is TRUTH. Jesus Christ is TRUTH. Jesus Christ is a virgin.
    Will Cardinal Mahoney still be eligible to vote for a new Pope? I hope not. Cardl Mahoney’s red hat needs to be removed permanently, in retribution.

  • Dave W. said it well: It is character that leads not experience in those moments. Mahoney’s overriding consideration was to cut the children loose and to hide the offenders. He probably dreaded the publicity exposure would bring to him. As I said before, incredibly self-serving. He keeps insisting that all should be okay because he said he was sorry. That’s cheap. A public apology was the least and easiest thing he could do. When I think of what he knew all along–how disgusting. He participated in the evil of the men who did the abusing, and he did this deliberately with plenty of scheming, forethought and full consent of his will. That qualifies as mortally sinful. But I don’t think he thinks it was all that bad–just bad enough to force that apology out of him.

  • Roger Mahony’s term as Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is one of the worst of any diocese of any part of the Catholic Church for the past few centuries, although Cardinal Weakland’s performace was nearly as bad. Mahony is still full of himself.

    Mundabor is entirely correct in his view of Mahony and Mahony’s disdain for the Extraordinary Form. I have little trust in bishops who oppose the EF. The Pope has spoken, yet many disobey. Gee, I wonder why?

  • “Mahony was a rotten Cardinal and is obviously a poor excuse for a human being, but based upon that last sentence he may have a future in stand up comedy.”

    Probably very much true!

    I lived in his archdiocese for 25 years, and was all too happy for his retirement in 2011. The letter came as absolutely zero surprise to me…and that he published it even less of a surprise.

    This move has been 3 years in the making by Abp Gomez. During the latter half of 2011, The publishing of this letter will not sit well with Abp Gomez at all. He (Abp Gomez) tends to like to keep things that are “in house” “in house” from what I’ve seen from his operations and speaking with him on several occasions. I foresee a situation where Cardinal Mahony will be evicted from the Archdiocese of LA for non-obedience…He’s hardly obedient to the Liturgy, I don’t expect him to listen to Abp Gomez or the Pope.

  • Can Cardinal Mahony be denied burial in a Catholic cemetery? If not, why not?
    The V.A. can deny burial to a veteran at a National cemetery for capital crimes and subversion.

    IMHO, why doesn’t the American Catholic church have a national burial system so it may compete in the secular culture in honoring the service(baptism) of its members? I know many vets who have the resources to be buried in “private cemeteries”,but prefer to be buried at a National Cemetery. The military doesn’t forget its long ago G.I., who served but a short time of his life in the military, and honor his service with the words; “This flag is presented on behalf of a grateful nation and the United States Army as a token of appreciation for your loved one’s honorable and faithful service”

The End of the Cardinal Mahony Era

Sunday, February 27, AD 2011

There isn’t much positive to say about a man that wrecked havoc in the largest U.S. diocese.

Except that today was his last day as Archbishop of the Los Angeles Archdiocese!

He’ll be remembered for closing down seminaries and convents and picking on little old nuns like Mother Angelica, building the Taj Mahony, but mostly for losing millions of nominal Catholics to indifferentism and agnosticism.

His many low points are too numerous to recount but his deconstruction of the Mass until it looked like nothing more than a campfire sing-a-long is quite shameful.

His promotion of syncretism and modernism has gained him the infamy he so richly earned among his peers.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to The End of the Cardinal Mahony Era

  • But here’s the real trouble – how was be appointed, in the first place; and how did he stay in so long? The gates of Hell will not prevail against God’s Church, but one must presume that there is something seriously wrong in there at the moment…

  • The gates of hell won’t prevail, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be casualties inflicted along the way.

  • Jerry, whoops I mean Roger Mahony, should be forced to retire to an isolated monastery on a very dangerous mountain that has no communication with the outside except on rare occassions. His chances of wrecking more havok on the Church in his retirement will be cut to near zero!

  • Good summary, Tito. I would just add that his egregious behavior with respect to priestly child abuse also has to be considered. Both during his time in Los Angeles and during his tenure as the Bishop of Stockton.

  • Send him to Craggy Island. He could be Father Ted Crilley’s ordinary!

  • Dale,

    Excellent point.

    I was doing my best to avoid listing all of his scandals out of prudence.

    I pray and hope Archbishop Gomes is better than Cardinal Mahony.

  • Bravo, Balto.

    Dougal: (trying to pray) Hail Mary who art in heaven…….
    Ted: Hallowed.
    Dougal: Oh yeah. Hallowed Be….
    Ted: Thy Name…
    Dougal: Papa Don’t Preach……..
    Ted: Dougal, you know you can praise the lord with sleep.
    Dougal: Really Ted? You can praise him in lots of ways, like that time you said that I could praise him just by leaving the room.
    Ted: Yes, that was a good one !

  • Tito,

    Don’t you mean the end of the Comrade Mahony era? “Cardinal” implies clericalism, you know, and hierarchy. Very unegalitarian. Very outdated.

  • Thank you, Tito for that wonderful video of that beautiful ceremony in Los Angeles. I understand that you consider it shows disdain for the liturgy. I respect your point of view but disagree. You say, vaya con dios, amigos but I don’t think you have ever seen a mass in Hong Kong or in the Olivera mission in LA or at the Cathedral in Fresno—in all of these, mariachi bands play and sing during high mass. Jesus is universal not white, western European. If African culture contains dances and drums that show its honor and respect, then it is not a campfire sing a long when they drum and dance in church.
    When I was very young I was present when Mahony,stood by the poor and farm workers as they proceeded to change the law in California winning basic health and labor interests for those that pick our food and work the crops. Those were the days when the Church did stand with the poor and the oppressed playing a great role in civil rights, labor, and unjust wars. I have no expectation that you will change your opinion that Mahoney stood for the principles of Vatican II and those of Jesus to extend to your neighbors what you would have extended to yourself.
    I can understand how upsetting it is for those who are old or have only been exposed to old tradition and have not seen the church as it exists cosmically or at least, internationally, to see the birthing of a new spirit evolving in the church. I wish you the best.
    And by the way, watch the video and watch Arch Bishop Gomes and how he claps compared to the white cleric to his right–Gomes has rhythm. People who have rhythm usually have soul and if you have soul, you tend to see all people, each and every one as your brothers and sisters without discrimination. I’m betting on him.

  • Antonio,

    That was one of the most racist rants I’ve ever heard. And I’ve heard many from both “white” and people like yourself.

    You see the world through ethnicity and color rather than through the dignity of the human soul.

    What nearly everyone, even the Pope’s and the choirs of Heaven, have said is to bring holiness and reverence to the Mass.

    Not nationalist sentiment like mariachi bands.

    You’re being placed on moderation until you cool your bigotry.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    A Proud first generation young American of rich Mexican heritage.

  • Bravo, Antonio!!!

  • Bravo Tito, for putting that reprobate on moderation where he belongs.

  • A “new spirit evolving in the Church”? That is heresy, that is blasphemy.

    “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain “restoration and regeneration” for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a “foundation may be laid of a new human institution,” and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing “may become a human church.” — Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 10

  • Tito, bravo for putting AC on moderation! He’s the guy who’s upset about the negative stance that most of us have shown on incest on Lisa Graas’s latest post. Well, it figures he would be ticked at any criticism of Mahony. Liberals tend to flock together!

  • Stephen,

    Being placed on moderation only means his comments need approval.

    He got placed there not for his comments on Lisa Graas’ post, but for his bigoted comments on this thread.

  • I can understand how upsetting it is for those who are old or have only been exposed to old tradition and have not seen the church as it exists cosmically or at least, internationally, to see the birthing of a new spirit evolving in the church.

    Not to be disrespectful, but I see Sr Chittister’s influence in that statement. “Cosmically”? “Birthing of a new spirit”? Spare me. Joe is correct – such beliefs are contrary to Church teaching, and blasphemous.

  • Wow! antonio, I did not know that anyone thought Jesus WAS ‘white western European”. I was under the impression that Jesus is, was and ever shall be the SAME. I also thought that Jesus was Incarnated as a Semitic Hebrew in first century Palestine, so His body when He walked the Earth was clearly NOT Mexican, hence I don’t understand the mariachi band (I doubt that He ate knishes or bagels and lox or spoke Yiddish either). Furthermore, I am confident that there were no mariachi bands in Mexico before the white western Spaniards from Europe came to liberate the poor Indian people from the slaughter and oppression of their pagan, Hummingbird Wizard witchdoctor overlords. If I am not mistaken those Spaniards were Catholic.

    When you view the world only through your ethnicity, race or nation while crying for ‘universality’ you reveal yourself a hypocrite. Please be honest. You are not calling for general universality; you are calling for a universal disdain for all things European, which means Western, which means Christendom, which means you stand against the universality of the Church. Like it or not, St. Peter went to Rome to establish his see and the universal Church, established in Palestine is administered from Rome (more specifically from the Vatican), hence why ALL Catholics, no matter the race, ethnicity, nation or Rite are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Servant of the servants of God.

    Anyway, as far as I am concerned Jesus isn’t white, Jewish or Mexican – He is wheat. I know, I saw Him earlier and He was definitely wheat Bread. He told me so Himself! Should I yell at Him for not being whole-grain, multi-grain, barely, lembas or any other type of bread?

    This site is the American Catholic, but make no mistake, it is Catholic first.

    Before you attack me for my provincial, white, right-wing, Americanist views, I am one of those ‘brown’ people, in fact, I share genetic code with those people of first century Palestine. Yet, that doesn’t make me relate more or less to Jesus or the Roman Pontiff who was born in Germany to German parents, or to my American of Italian descent bishop, or my Irish pastor, or Tito or any of the other bloggers here at TAC. Weird, huh?

  • Tito, he may have been placed on moderation for what he said on your thread, but hey, it doesn’t matter to me where duck gets shot!

  • Roger Mahony, staunch friend of abuser clerics:


    Indeed, a true hero of the downtrodden.

  • “What nearly everyone, even the Pope’s and the choirs of Heaven, have said is to bring holiness and reverence to the Mass.
    Not nationalist sentiment like mariachi bands.”

    I am absolutely NO fan of Cardinal Mahony and I agree it is long past time for him to go. But before we all pile on Antonio C., I have to say that there MAY be at least a grain of truth to what he said.

    Yes, the Mass is supposed to “the same” everywhere (this was one of the beauties of the Latin Mass) and obvious liturgical abuses or departures from the rubrics should not be tolerated.

    However, does that mean there is absolutely no room for cultural variation or expression anywhere in the liturgy? There are, after all, many other rites besides the Latin Rite that are recognized by the Church and in full union with Rome — Byzantine, Syriac, Maronite, Alexandrian, Armenian, Chaldean, etc. Does their existence indicate “disdain for all things European, which means Western”? Also, did not Pope John Paul II himself say that the Western and Eastern traditions were like “two lungs” and the Church would never be fully healthy until both were reunited?

    I agree that one should not view EVERYTHING through the narrow prism of one’s nationality or ethnicity, but neither should one pretend that it has NO effect on one’s view of the world, or on how one expresses piety or love for God. The time and place where you are born and where you live is part of who you are; none of us can be, or should be, totally detached “citizens of the world”. Yes, we are Catholic first, but that doesn’t mean there should be nothing in second place.

    The problem with Cardinal Mahony’s approach to liturgy was that as a Latin Rite bishop he went far beyond the bounds of what the Latin Rite permits with liturgical dances and whatnot. Perhaps there were people who did actually enjoy those liturgies, or who found them moving — but how they felt about them is not the point. The point is that they were conducted in flagrant disobedience of liturgical norms for the Latin Rite. The problems went way beyond merely having mariachi bands provide the music.

  • “Wow! antonio, I did not know that anyone thought Jesus WAS ‘white western European”.

    What!!! Jesus isn’t Irish? Now they tell me!

  • Elaine,

    I am proud of my Levantine ancestry. In fact, I was born in the Levant (Lebanon to Phoenician and Palestinian parents). That is my ethnic and national origin. I am still ethnically Levantine; however, I am no longer Lebanese. I am a proud Virginian-American. I am not facebooking my personal information, especially since I use an anonymous moniker here. I simply state this to indicate that the uniqueness of our catholic Church and the inherent universalism of America (despite her WASP origins) are similar. When one chooses to move to another nation, not as a temporary or visiting guest, but as a new home, they usually have to conform to ancient tribal/cultural practices and are always in someway a stranger. Here, it is different. We are not melted into being American, we are not assimilated, we are integrated into a new national identity. How so? This country is a cultural amalgam of diverse cultures (mostly European, but also African, Native American Indian, etc.). It is easy to become American, which is why I find it so baffling that many born here in the last 40 years and those who have come here in the same period seem to resist it so fervently.

    What unifies the American nation? Our national creed, as Chesterton (I think) said, we are the only one’s who have one. Our creed is Christian in character. The fact that this is a Christian nation is what allows us to so easily become one. Since Christendom fell apart, this is the only nation in the world with such an identity (one could argue the same for Malta; however that is an unfair and useless comparison).

    That being the case, we have to recognize that as Catholics who are also Americans we have to guard ourselves from too much integration. The creed of the nation is Christian in character, but it is not necessarily Catholic. When we allow our public worship, our liturgy, to seem no different than Protestants and Evangelicals, we dilute the truth. Our Liturgy is the only one that is centered on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Our ceremonial worship MUST reflect that. Liturgy is not about what we want, what we like, what we need – it is about the once and for all Holy Sacrifice of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. No one else can claim that and we MUST worship and appear to worship with Him and Him alone in mind and heart. No other ‘Christian’ church offers the prayer of the Son to the Father as we do. This must be celebrated – by one of His priests and ASSISTED by the laity.

    The video we saw above, in no way resembles that. We may as well have Joel Osteen preach. Don’t get me wrong, I like Osteen – but, he cannot offer the Sacrifice no matter how sincere, how worshipful, how inspiring he may be and no matter how great the music is. It can never ever be the Holy Mass. I know you know this, but many do not and we who know must be very clear and firm as to what Mass is and how it is to be celebrated.

  • Sorry to break the news to you Donald. Oh, and by the way Santa Clause was a bishop, not an elf. Please don’t cry. 😉

  • The good news (or bad news, depending on the perspective) starts:

    US judge allows clergy abuse lawsuit to proceed against Los Angeles, Mexican cardinals
    By: Gillian Flaccus, The Associated Press
    Posted: 02/28/2011

    LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A Mexico City man can proceed with a clergy abuse lawsuit filed in U.S. court against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, even though the alleged abuse occurred in Mexico and the priest and plaintiff are Mexican citizens, a federal judge has ruled.

    U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker on Friday denied a motion from church attorneys who had sought dismissal of the case by arguing U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.

    Michael Hennigan, an attorney for the archdiocese, said the case has no merit and would ultimately be dismissed.

    The unusual lawsuit was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 and alleges that recently retired Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and his counterpart in the Mexican Diocese of Tehuacan conspired to protect the priest and help him avoid authorities on both sides of the border.

    More at http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/us-judge-allows-clergy-abuse-lawsuit-to-proceed-against-los-angeles-mexican-cardinals-117091078.html


Wednesday, September 8, AD 2010

The Episcopal Church?

Cardinal’s Mahony or O’Malley’s Archdioceses?

If you guessed any of these you’re pretty darn close!

(Hat Tip:  Creative Minority Report)

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Progressive-Church.Com

Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

Sunday, May 2, AD 2010

The State of Arizona is only enforcing what is already law at the federal level.  That being said and myself being the son of a legal immigrant from the nation of Mexico, the May Day protests and the highly unbalanced news reporting from the mainstream media have purposely distorted the legislation that has been passed in Arizona.

Having attended college and lived in Arizona for almost ten years I know for a fact that there are many good people living there and I am disappointed in how unfairly and untruthful they have been portrayed by the mainstream media.

The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.


Related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

Illegal Immigration:  A Winning Issue for Democrats?

Catholic Worker View of NAFTA/Immigration

Mexifornia:  A State of Becoming

Arizona, Immigration, and Moral Panic

Arizonas New Immigration Law

Somewhat related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

British Survey on Foreigners in the United Kingdom

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

  • Well, if the mainstream media is painting the Arizona populace as a cesspool of evil people then surely the media is wrong. But to argue that the people of Arizona are direly wrong about this law (when there’s a poll of 70% or so supporting then), then it is a qutie honest disagreement on strategy. I don’t think it’s helpful necessarily to focus on the most extreme opinions coming from one side or the other because the discourse gets stuck on he-said, she-said, but-he-said-something-even-more-vile melodramatic soap opera nonsense and it does nothing to solve the problem.

  • Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration. For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country. The immigrants crossing the Mexican border, however, have absolutely no interest in following these legal protocols. Once they cross the border, they change their names and/or purchase social security numbers in an effort to conceal their true identities from the law. It is not uncommon for an illegal immigrant to purchase not one, but two or more social security numbers, just in case one is flagged. I have witnessed this crime with my own eyes. (One day, a supposedly legal immigrant was asked to give their social security card to a receptionist for a job application and an interview. When the receptionist happened to ask to see the card a second time, the immigrant mistakenly handed over a different social security card with the same name on it, but with a completely different set of numbers…)

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against Hispanics. I have many Hispanic friends, but they either have green cards to work in the United States or have become legal citizens. They decided to follow the rule of law and work within the boundaries of our legal system. Unfortunately, many immigrants do not, and it those particular individuals that we are most concerned about.

    Now it seems that those who sympathize with illegal immigrants wish to hijack the discussion of reform by attacking the law recently imposed by the State of Arizona through protests and boycotts; a state mind you, that has been besieged with crime, drugs and an ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants. Don’t allow them this option. Speak out and take action. This is your country… fight for it.

    In closing, I consider myself to be a bleeding-heart liberal: a Democrat. My ancestor, Roger Williams – one of our founding fathers, was one too; regarding the acceptance of different nationalities, cultures and religions as the vitality and lifeblood of any country. Nevertheless, I think that he would agree with me; that immigrants wishing to become legal citizens have not only the obligation, but the civil and legal responsibility to follow the rules of law established by any country in which they wish to become authentic citizens, just as our ancestors – both yours and mine – struggled so arduously and righteously to achieve.

  • “The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.”

    That’s an understatement.

  • There is a reason why bishops have near dictatorial powers in their dioceses. They are meant “to know their sheep”. Cardinal Mahony has lost control of his flock. Instead of paying attention to the flood of immorality which rises from his archdiocesis, had he not better address that? Or is he fearful of losing popularity?

    From my own Irish background, I believe he is one of the fast fading [laus Deo] Irish clerics who live in the previous century. Time to retire to a monastery and contemplate the last ends.

    [Footnote: there is nothing new in the Arizona immigration law. It merely copies the U.S. law].

  • “Unbecoming of an archbishop”??? If the Holy Father had said the same thing, I suppose it would have been unbecoming of a pope too. Yet you and your “real Catholics” never fail to criticize the clergy for mincing words about those social ills of which you disapprove. It strikes me that jumping on a prince of the Church for defending Catholic teaching, even if his words sound harsh to the “good people” you know in Arizona, is unbecoming of a Catholic blogger.

  • Calling the people who support the legislation in Arizona Nazis and Communists is completely in line with Cardinal Mahoney’s adherence to the Magisterium. The only problem is that the Magisterium he adheres to is that of the New York Times.

  • Prince of the Church?



  • while I don’t find comparisons to totalitarian regimes prudent or useful I agree with his sentiment. this bill is over authoritarian and is unjust. I’m pretty sure if you asked people in general what they thought about cops checikng peoples papers and separating families they would say it was wrong. no idea why that changes when it’s an immigrant getting checked-though I suspect that many (not accusing anyone here mind you) do so out of racist, natvisit, and/or anti-catholic predjudices

  • I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced. I also think Mahoney is a disgrace and has been one for years. I don’t think either of those positions is authoritarian, racist, nativist or anti-Catholic.

  • I think it’s possible to simultaneously hold:

    – US immigration laws should be enforced (even if one doesn’t like their current quotas).
    – This particular law is an unwise and excessive way of trying to attempt that.
    – Mahony’s way of expressing his dislike for the law was foolish and irresponsible (not to mention unpastoral) in the extreme.
    – Mahony deserves a modicum of respect because of his office.
    – Mahony has been pretty at best unhelpful at and worst a disaster for both his own diocese and the Church in the US as a whole.

  • I’m with Don on this.

    This law, which was just clarified again by the AZ legislature, only mandates that police investigate immigration status in the course of “lawful contact”, investigating a crime. It requires police to do the job that the federal government has failed to do.

    It doesn’t mandate or create any sweeping new powers, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s “civil rights”, which in this day and age has come to mean “my right to never be questioned by the police about anything I do, ever.”

    It’s nothing but a politically-loaded catch phrase that partisans of the left use to mask their true belief, which is this: that national borders are inherently unjust, that nations and states have no inherent right to exist, and that the immigration law we do have should not be enforced in order to more quickly and speedily bring about their demise.

    I know because I was in the communist movement. I know because I argued this myself, I believed it, and I promoted the idea through propaganda and agitation. It was the official position of my party and every other party of the far left. Not only should the law not be enforced, “workers” (that is, leftists) should do all in their power to make illegal immigration safer, more efficient, and more permanent, and conspire to break the law or at least test its limits to the extreme.

    This law is not unwise. This law is not unjust. This law is a rational response to a federal failure and a wave of lethal violence from south of the border. Mexico has become a narco-terror state in many regions along the border. On our side we must be empowered to protect lives, liberty and property from a ruthless enemy.

    If the feds actually were doing their damned jobs, would those of you who don’t like this law be claiming that federal immigration law was unjust? If so, then just say it. Admit that you don’t want there to be immigration laws. Because saying you want a level of government to enforce them that has consistently failed to enforce them is tantamount to saying that you don’t want them enforced.

  • Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration.

    If your problem with something is that it is illegal, then you should favor making it legal.

    For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country.

    Unless your mother’s parents were war refugees, the fact they came through Ellis Island suggests that they came to the country back when we had open immigration. If today’s law were in place back then your mom’s parents likely wouldn’t have been able to (legally) come here.

  • I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.

    Would you say the same for ObamaCare?

  • Btw, a common refrain in the immigration debate is that the federal government isn’t enforcing the immigration laws. I’m not quite sure what this means. I was talking with an ICE agent this weekend, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t sit around all day surfing the web and watching Oprah. I take it that the assumption the federal government isn’t enforcing the law is based primarily on the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in this country, but by that logic the government isn’t enforcing the laws against drug dealing and murder either.

  • I concur (oddly?) with DC and BA.

  • don: I stated I was not accusing anyone here of that. people like tancredo? absolutely.

    Joe: if it makes you feel better the Feds are doing a better job of stopping illegal immigration than other things. if you don’t believe me come on down to louisiana where we wish the Feds were doing as well ad they’ve done on the borders

  • I don’t know why Arizonans would want to protect their citizens from Mexican drug cartel violence, safeguard the public treasury, or prevent the strain on their already choked social services. I mean, not doing that has done wonders for LA! That movie, American Me, I want to recreate that in my city. Yes!

    I have no idea why they’d want to enforce the laws that have been on the books since the USA formed or why they’d be mad at the Feds for not doing their jobs of securing our borders. Arizonans are racists, red-neck, bigoted, right-wing conspiracists for wanting to protect the quality of life of LEGAL immigrants already living here. What’s up with that? They should enjoy picking up the 2 million tons of trash the illegals leave strewn across our lands as they make their way north because they always have beautiful, sunny skies.

    Did you know that asking for someone’s citzenship papers is the equivalent of slaughtering 7 million Jews in Nazi Germany. If you didn’t, then you’re not reading the main-stream, unbiased, good-intentioned media. Get with the program, Comrades! Read the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Post, or any newspaper that feeds off of them. It will really educate you and keep you from losing your public education indoctrination.

    Why not let the entire world into this country, starting with Haiti, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Yemen — oh, and don’t forget a few “mainstream” Castro-loving Cubans. I’m sure the freedom-loving Cubans already living in Miami who hate Castro won’t mind. Let’s blow taxpayers’ money overseas by sending travel vouchers to the Middle East so they can fly to Mexico and come across the border. Can’t we all just get along? If we just sat down and negotiated with them, all war, poverty and disease would end and Obama could save us all.

    After their amnesty, they’ll vote Democrat in order to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing freely and keep Democrats in power. What’s so wrong about that? That stuff going on in Greece — riots, protest. Yeah, I like that. Let’s get some of that. After all, we’re no longer a Republic. We’re a dictatorship. Just ask the folks who passed healthcare with the Slaughter House Rules, instead of abiding by the will of the people. If you can’t afford health insurance, you should be jailed or fined by IRS agents, so there will be no room for locking up illegal aliens. Obama is going to help this country like Chairman Mao helped China take the Great Leap Forward, or how Stalin helped unite the Russians. CHANGE, TRANSFORM. I really love it.

    All I ask is that you don’t complain as your paychecks get smaller and smaller. After all, someone has to pay for all those bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, etc. Well, you get the idea. It might as well be you. We know from history that the rich ALWAYS get soaked, so none of it will effect your pocketbook. Right? I mean, look how many millionaires are now living in boxes by the river. Plus, the more money you rob from rich people and give to poor people, the more jobs that are created. Right, Nancy Pelosi? It looks like rain today — maybe too much. I hope the government is doing something about that. Maybe a rain tax is needed.

  • Michael,

    Why should what happens in Louisiana have anything to do with the situation in AZ? The feds are not doing a good job in the Southwest. That’s why AZ acted. This was not arbitrary.

    So, no, the idea that some other state might benefit more from federal help doesn’t make me “feel better”, and I don’t know why it should. Though technically I don’t live in AZ, my entire family on my mother’s side does. So that’s what I care about.

  • “I’m not quite sure what this means.”

    You know exactly what it means – you just like making strawmen out of opposing arguments.

  • I, as Joe, know the issues and problems in Arizona.

    What Arizona is doing is lawful, just, and moral.

    How many are portraying Arizona as is disgusting.

    Thank goodness for democracy.

    Otherwise, things will get really ugly.

  • Don: I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.

    BA: Would you say the same for ObamaCare?

    BA, you just demonstrated in this sentence that you are not in the least interested in having an honest debate or discussion on this issue.

  • “’Unbecoming of an archbishop’??? If the Holy Father had said the same thing, I suppose it would have been unbecoming of a pope too.”-ron chandonia

    Yes, Ron, calumny would be unbecoming of a pope too. Praise Jesus that our pope is able to resist such.

    Pray for our bishops.

  • “I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.”

    “Would you say the same for ObamaCare?”

    I have called for the repeal of ObamaCare BA since I regard it as very bad public policy. I support immigration laws which I view as good public policy. The quotas for each foreign nation should be determined by Congress and not by coyotes bringing illegals across our southern border. I believe all nations on Earth have immigration laws and I find the hysteria surrounding the people of Arizona taking action to actually enforce ours rather comic.

  • If today’s law were in place back then your mom’s parents likely wouldn’t have been able to (legally) come here.

    If I am not mistaken, the law allows 800,000 immigrants to enter the country every year, with an additional increment of refugees whose number varies according to circumstance. The principal constraint for the aspirant immigrant are the preference categories which favor the relatives of extant immigrants.

  • Joe,

    Actually I’m serious. The federal government deports about a million illegal immigrants a year; if you don’t think that’s enforcing the law, then you should at least say what you would consider enforcement.

    I suspect that the enforcement issue is a red herring. People favor enforcing laws they like; if it is a law they don’t like they are fine with it not being enforced. Thus, Don has the quaint notion that immigration laws should be enforced, but as he himself admits this is because he thinks our immigration laws are good policy. Arizona in particular has attempted to “nullify” federal law on a number of subjects (including, ironically, the REAL ID Act).

  • “Thus, Don has the quaint notion that immigration laws should be enforced, but as he himself admits this is because he thinks our immigration laws are good policy.”

    Actually BA I believe virtually all laws should be enforced because to do otherwise is a short route to chaos. On this point I agree with Saint Thomas More as I elaborated in this post below:


    My precise position as to obeying the law as set forth in that post: “People should act to change bad laws. If a law so seriously compromises a person’s conscience that obeying it would appear to that person to be active complicity in evil than disobedience of the law, with the willingness to be punished for the disobedience, may be called for by that individual. Otherwise, even bad or foolish laws should be obeyed until they can be changed, short of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” which justifies a rising in revolt by a people. To act otherwise is to reduce the law to mere opinion and to cause our civil society to descend to the rule of the strongest or the loudest.”

  • Joe: you missed the point. I was trying to make a point about federal incompetence.

    to everyone else: I’m not interested in these “we here understand the problem as it really is” arguments. at best those defend the ends of this bill-but that’s not the bills only problem. more important is the means this bill entails-the documentation part. it’s not just.

    unfortunately I think all this is doing is making sure pro-life catholic Hispanics flee to the welcoming arms of the democrats.

  • Donald,

    So you believe virtually all laws should be enforced, but not ObamaCare? Or do you think that ObamaCare should be enforced too (including, say, the individual mandate)?

    Incidentally, I don’t think the passage from Bolt’s play really has much to do with whether laws should be enforced. More is talking about the importance of the legal protections against arbitrary arrest and punishment that were present in English law. He wasn’t saying that you have to enforce every statute to its full extent, and if you were to change the law to remove the legal protections More’s talking about then that would be equally problematic.

  • You will look long and hard on this blog BA without finding a sentence stated by me that ObamaCare should not be enforced. My focus has been on legal challenges to the law, amendments, and the enactment of state laws to attack ObamaCare. All within the realm of the law, and in the realm of attempts to change the law through political victory. Your position BA appears to be that we have no duty to obey laws that we disagree with. That is not my position and I am certain that it was not the position of Saint Thomas More.

  • Don nailed it as usual, and I say that as one who disagrees with Don (I think) on the AZ legislation. I oppose the legislation for several prudential reasons, but find the open borders arguments equally problematic. The failure of the federal government to secure borders is scandalous and unacceptable. As Tom Friedman once put it (not sure if this is a blind squirrel or stopped clock priciple here), we need a tall fence and wide gate.

  • Your position BA appears to be that we have no duty to obey laws that we disagree with.

    No, my position would be that if a law is a bad law, it probably shouldn’t be expanded.

    I apologizes for my error regarding your position on enforcing ObamaCare. There are, however, lots of people who don’t want to see the law enforced, including many of the people responsible for and supportive of the Arizona law.

  • BA,

    You’re make assumptions not based in fact. People opposed to Obamacare did not want the law enacted. They also want the law repealed. No one here has said leave the crappy law on the books and disobey it or that the various bureaucracies it creates should sit on their hands and not do their job. No, folks with an understanding of human nature, economics, and the health care system are opposed to Obamacare because it will make things worse for most folks and greatly increase government involvement in people’s lives.

    For those saying that Cardinal Mahony should not be criticized for his inane and nonsensical comments I can only assume you did not bother clicking the link and reading his inaccurate assessment of what Arizona passed. Consider this comment of his:

    “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.

    “Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers?”

    Please show me where in the Arizona law it addresses something as stupid as the idea of requiring children to turn in their parent. That is as silly as being against laws against hardcore drugs because if a child saw their parent shooting up horse they might feel obliged to tell on mommy or daddy. Does the archbishop not have a staff to assist him with his speeches so he would not seem foolish?

    I could respect his position if he would just say “Hey, countries should not have any borders. We are all children of God and should not let artificial borders separate us.” However, he is throwing inaccurate allegation out about the Arizona law instead.

  • Amazing. Illegal aliens are to be classified as criminals… What does “illegal” mean again? — I’m a bit confused here.

  • “I urge everyone who is outraged by Cardinal Mahony’s calumnious remarks as I am to contact the media relations office for the L.A.”

    I gave up on Cardinal Mahony year’s ago. You only have to look at his hideous “cathedral” with its pagan-like altar, his rebellions against the Pope and his weird masses to know that his “Catholicism” is whatever he decides he wants it to be for that particular week. It’s best to just pray for his soul and hope for a Pope who will actually rein him in.

    So am I surprised at what he says about Arizona’s new immigration law. No, it just confirms what I already knew about him.

  • BA will say anything to get under your skin. Best to learn that now.

    “The federal government deports about a million illegal immigrants a year; if you don’t think that’s enforcing the law, then you should at least say what you would consider enforcement.”

    There isn’t enough enforcement. There aren’t enough agents. There aren’t enough funds. And the advanced, military-style tactics of the cartels and the gangs call for higher levels of training and enforcement. The federal government has not taken the problem as seriously as it should. Mexico is destabilizing, there is a violent civil war being fought right on our border. A few more INS agents aren’t going to cut it at this point. This is a national security issue, one far more valid than Afghanistan I might add.

    As Gov. Brewer pointed out, the costs of housing foreign nationals (which ought to be done or at least paid for by the federal government) costs the state 150 million each year. Thats small beans at the federal level but these are considerably larger sums at the state level.

    As for Obamacare…

    If people want to resist Obamacare, what do I care? You really think the principle here is that laws should be enforced because they’re laws?

    I don’t worship the law, I’m not a lawyer. The fundamental right to self-preservation against violent enemies is a natural right that needs no validation or authorization from any government. If human laws support it, good. If they don’t, to hell with them. No law and no constitution is a suicide pact.

    So, I’m not going to be squeezed into your rhetorical box. This isn’t about the law. It is about what is right and wrong, about survival and self-preservation. If you want to oppose that, you’re welcome to try and see how far you get.

  • In response to you e-mail…….I am among the 70% plus of Arizonans who approve of the Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill!
    Too many people have not read the Bill so how can they be against it when they do not know what’s in it?
    Too many people rather believe in heresy than in facts! The American main media is a classic example.
    Here in Tucson, only one percent of the protesters when asked were register voter, the rest were high school kids (from Tucson High School) and illegals on the day the Governor signed the Bill. NO LIE!

    Like California, Arizona is bleeding from the financial burden that illegals have created in this state. Crime committed by illegals in Arizona is another burden for our State law enforcement agencies.

    When someone walks into a Chase Bank to open an account, the Customer Representative will ask for proper identification. If that someone does not show the proper identification that someone will be ask if he or she is an American citizen. If not, a different form has to be fill out.

    When someone is stop for a traffic violation, is in a traffic accident, acting suspicious, or commits a crime, the police officer will ask for proper identification.
    If that someone does not show the proper identification, that someone will be ask if he or she is an American citizen. If not, that someone will be question further to determine his or her status in this country. It’s not profiling!

    My father arrived in this country from Mexico at the age of six. For seventy-four years he carried with him a U.S. working permit (Green Card). He never complained of profiling! Whenever someone asked him if he was American citizen, he would proudly say no

  • Pingback: Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A. « The American Catholic

Speculating on Gomez

Tuesday, April 6, AD 2010

First of all, I need to introduce myself: my name is Michael Denton and I’m from what Tito calls the People’s Republic of Cajunland and what I call paradise: South Louisiana. As for my qualifications: well, like most other bloggers, I really have no idea what I’m talking about. If that’s a problem for you…well, then you probably don’t need to be reading blogs.

Anyway, today we heard the anticipated news that Los Angeles will soon see Cardinal Mahoney replaced with San Antonio’s Archbishop Jose Gomez. To read all about it, I suggest you head over to Rocco Palmo‘s site, as he is one of the few bloggers who actually does know what he’s talking about. In sum, Abp. Gomez is from the “conservative” order of Opus Dei and could be very different from his predecessor, who built a monstrous cathedral (not in a good way) and is known for hosting a Conference that annually provides Youtube clips for Catholics wishing to show others just how bad liturgical abuse can be. I don’t know if that’s very interesting though. While the liturgical element is certainly important, as the “Spirit of Vatican II” types are losing their foremost defender, I think we knew beforehand that Benedict was going install a replacement very different from Mahoney in liturgical views.

More important is how they’re similar.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Speculating on Gomez

  • Just a note. Opus Dei is not a Religious order. Its a Personal Prelature with the priest being incardinated in it.

  • A second note. The Church does recognize the right of the state to regulate immigration. Gomez recognizes this and sees that there must be some penalty for violating immigration laws (though he does not recommend deportation.)

  • Yes, I think a critical distinction needs to be made between those who advocate “open boarders” and those who simply believe in treating immigrants with dignity and respect.

    I really hope that Gomez puts an end to liturgical abuse, to sacrilege, to ceremonies that are more pagan than Christian, as well.

  • Welcome soon to be second year law student! Your first year of legal hell is almost up!

  • I look forward, with very guarded hope, to Archbishop Gomez’s ascension to the throne of Mahoneyland, er, I mean, the Archdiocese of L.A. I had occasion to write him some time ago regarding a concern I had with actions and attitudes here in the Diocese of “All Borders are heinous injustices.”

    That said, I think we do the Catechism (where the full foundation of Church teaching is to be found) serious disservice when we reduce it word-searching. “See, see here! It says immigrant!”

    A nation or people may be called to account for how outsiders within their borders are treated. I think we sometimes take that notion and run straight to the place from which we so often hear Card. Mahoney and others villify the nation for our “inhumane” treatment of Latino (and that’s all anyone really cares about here) immigrants.

    If you want to see migrants (brought to the country legally, often by the government, to work in the “jobs our citizens won’t do” category, go to Saudi Arabia and see how they treat the Filipinos and other island (and some Asian) “third country nationals.” They are normally corraled in living areas near where they work and transported to/from their work areas with little or no ceremony. If they venture into Saudi cities on their free time, they do so with virtually no expectation of good treatment by any authorities. Any rights or dignity thewy might be afforded will be owing only to their demonstrated adherance to Islamic “faith.”

    Unless it truly is unacceptable to have and enforce borders (and if so, I missed that article in the Catechism), we need to accept that the licitness of borders and the control thereof has something to say about the illicitness of those who make of themselves a commodity, by placing themselves in the shadows of the society against whom they trespass. (The trespass of those who hire them does nothing to eliminate the alien’s trespass against the society as a whole.)

    We Catholics seem satisfied with absurd notions that we (the USA) are responsible for the family situations of those who make themselves prisoners or fugitives in our land. To say so is to say that laws against and prison sentences for murder are unjust because of the family separation they impose.

  • I cannot imagine any Archbishop who is given the archdiocese of L.A.who will not work from what is organic. I do believe we are going to experience new wine. I read an article which stated Gomez like past Bishops of American Catholic immigrants also has a main concern to teach authentic Catholicism to the Hispanics. This is not unusual if you look at the Irish and Italian immigrants and their needs in past centuries. I read where he gave a talk on taking the Word of God out to the world and a Hispanic women approach him and said she would start a bible study. What a novel idea a Bishop through preaching converted a person from old ways to the new way.
    I was on the L.A. Times blog and boy the secular world is upset that attention is being given to Hispanics, our culture does need to be re-evangelized.

  • The pro-amnesty position of Cdl Mahony is NOT the “Church’s teaching” on immigration.

  • While I think one can make an open borders argument based on Catholic teaching, I didn’t make the argument nor did Benedict (perhaps Mahoney did; it wouldn’t surprise me). Without getting too deep into Church teaching on immigration (which would merit more research on my part & another post), my understanding is that the bishops’ problems with current US immigration policy is twofold

    1) That the US is unfairly limiting immigration. The US can support more immigration and take them in legally but is refusing to do so. While this can be interpreted as “open borders” it doesn’t have to be; only that the borders should be more wide open.

    2) That the US is committing an injustice by treating illegal immigrants like sub-human beings-allowing below minimum wage, denying health care, making citizenship difficult, etc. I think the current condition that the immigrant finds himself is the greater concern of the bishops as it shows a lack of respect for the dignity of the human person, which does not stop once once sets foot over the arbitrary imaginary line we call the US/Mexican border.

    Now, I don’t know nearly enough to say what the solution is, especially with the rightful balancing of a country’s need to secure its border and enforce its laws, other than deportation is not the answer (for ethical & financial reasons). But I don’t think it’s unfair to at a minimum point out that illegal immigrants are facing injustice and more effort should be spent finding solutions rather than on nativist rhetoric.

  • illegal immigrants are facing injustice

    They broke the law to enter the country. Naturally that doesn’t remotely justify treating them inhumanely (though I would strongly suggest that the actual treatment of illegal immigrants in this country is far from inhumane), but let’s not lose sight of what the real issue is, nor should we engage in baseless rhetoric about “nativist rhetoric” when those opposed to amnesty have far loftier and reasonable justifications for their position.

  • ” … the “Spirit of Vatican II” types are losing their foremost defender …”

    Hardly. The archbishop is a JPII man, and rather autocratic to boot.

    Spelling, spelling, spelling … sheesh.

  • I think if one argues that illegal immigrants should have their status legalized with the simple penalty of community service, then one in effect has open borders. Its a get out of jail card with no real penalty.

    I also think that if one considers it sub-human treatment to deny citizenship for one illegally here then there is no point in discussion. Emotion wins.

  • In my parish, St. John the Evangelist in Goshen, NY, the first major pedophile scandal materialized in the early nineties. The priest in question, “Father Ed” had been molesting boys in their early teens. To say that the parishioners were traumatized by this would be an understatement. They were devastated. Then something wondrous happened….

    Father Ed was eventually replaced by Father Trevor Nichols. Father Trevor had been an Anglican in merrie old England when he converted to Catholicism. On becoming a Catholic was transferred to Saint John’s – WITH HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS! A married priest! WITH TWO KIDS!

    You want to hear the punch line? Our little parish did not implode. The sun did not fall from the sky. Huge cracks did not appear in the earth’s surface. In fact, it was nice having them. They were – and are to this day – deeply beloved by the people of St. John’s.

    Allowing priests to marry would transform the Catholic Church. Having Father Trevor, his wife Marian and their two lovely daughters in our midst certainly transformed the people of St. John’s.


    Tom Degan

  • “Allowing priests to marry would transform the Catholic Church.”

    It certainly has done wonders for the Episcopal Church, assuming that the term wonder encompasses extinction.

  • Tom Degan,

    What does your proposal for disobeying Church discipline have to do with Archbishop Gomez moving to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?

  • Todd,

    How many bishops are there at this point who weren’t selected by John Paul II? If that constitutes a disproof of being a “Spirit of Vatican II” type in your mind, then it’s already extinct. Whatever one wants to call Mahony, it must be admitted that he represents a type of diocesan leadership that conservative Catholics will be very glad to see go, in regards to liturgy, dealing with the scandals, politics, vocations, religious education, and a host of other issues. And whatever his other faults, progressive Catholics have often found themselves in his corner — as when he squared off against Mother Angelica. Of course, he’s not the darling that Archbishop Weakland was… But we know how that one worked out in the end.


    It’s certainly a good thing that your parish got a faithful new priest — and there are some very good priests who are converts from Anglicanism, some of whom are married. (Father Longnecker springs to mind.) However, one cannot really see that it was only because he was married that he proved to be a good priest for your parish. There are, of course, a great many celibate priests (some of them also converts from Anglicanism) who also do not molest teenage boys. The vast, vast majority, in fact. That yours happened to be married does not mean that the Church needs to change its general discipline in the Western Church.

  • Darwin, I don’t see things with an enemy-of-my-enemy mindset.

    Speaking as the liberal you know me to be, I find Cardinal Mahony’s leadership style distasteful, and this isn’t (or shouldn’t be) news to St Bloggers who have stalked me over the years. If you pressed me, I could probably name about a half-dozen things I dislike about the man’s legacy.

    My preference in bishops (a qualified hero) would be guys like Ken Untener and Michael Kenny, both of whom I’ve met and heard speak, not only for what they had to say, but more: how they lived their lives as bishops in witness to the gospel. But it’s probably little surprise I’m more of a sell-the-mansion, reach-out-to-the-poor kind of guy anyway.

    This liberal is happy that his kind of autocrat is leaving. I know Archbishop Gomez even less than I know the cardinal. He seems to be more energetic, and maybe he’s less of an autocrat. If so, good for LA. If not, I’ll probably be happy when he retires, too.

    Interesting that you should mention vocations, because two of the Right’s favorite punching bags over the years, Mahony and Trautmann, are both doing pretty well when it comes to clergy. Far from the bottom of the heap, as it were.

  • “So while conservatives rejoice at the sufferings the liberals must endure at the loss of their liturgical dancers, it would be wise to remember that Benedict wants some change from the right as well.”

    True. But I do think it is problematic that define support for immigration reform as just on the left and opposition to it just on the right. That does not seem to mirtor the actual poltial reality

  • The world not being a polarity, people are certainly not required to like those who are more on their end than not — but it can’t really be denied that much of Mahony’s influence especially in the last 15 years of his episcopacy has been much more towards the progressive side of the Catholic spectrum than otherwise.

    Also, franky, I’m perplexed as to how you can say that Mahony has been doing well as regards vocations. My native diocese (Los Angeles) has more than ten times as many Catholics as my adopted one (Austin) but a similar number of ordinations and seminarians. Plus, the most of vocations LA does manage are “imports” — that is, come to the diocese as seminarians but didn’t live there prior to entering seminary.

    That said, having met Cardinal Mahony on several occasions and heard him speak, I can assure you that he is in person a very nice guy. You would probably like him if you actually met him.

  • Todd,

    “St Bloggers who have stalked me over the years”

    And I suppose you never went around provoking people with your comments. No, you just tell the truth, and people get so mad that they have to stalk you. That it?

  • jh:

    Well, I think the right has deeper problems than the left on the issue. I don’t think you’re going to get much traction on a “Make them speak English” platform in a Democratic room while you’ll get some in a GOP room.

    That said, as the healthcare debate showed both sides have the concerns of the immigrant as very low priority so you’re right to point out that both have significant problems on this issue.

  • “He seems to be more energetic, and maybe he’s less of an autocrat.”

    When it comes to Church leadership, I’m not a fan of democracy.

  • MD,

    Don’t conflate politics with Catholicism.

    I volunteer and help the homeless and serve food to the hungry, but I am not a Democrat.

    Just sayin’!


  • MD,

    Actually you ask most first generation immigrants and they want their children to learn English. Only so far you can get in a culture if you don’t speak the dominant language. Can’t carry bilingual education to the college level.

    Its compassionate liberals that will keep immigrants down by keeping them in a linguistic ghetto.

  • When it comes to Church leadership, I’m not a fan of democracy.

    You’re so right. Fascism makes for a better, tighter, more unified, ecclesiology.

  • “Speaking as the liberal you know me to be, I find Cardinal Mahony’s leadership style distasteful, and this isn’t (or shouldn’t be) news to St Bloggers who have stalked me over the years.”

    Stalked? Todd, you are the one who keeps showing up here in the comboxes.

  • Donald, there’s a significant and logical difference between my visiting your site and selectively posting on topics of interest, and your practice of responding to practically every one of my posts here. Though to be fair, you pretty much post anywhere you disagree with one of your visitors.

    You do have a colleague here who sees fit to mention my federal voting record, even on threads in which politics is not in the tag.

    That said, you’ve left alone my comments on Cardinal Mahony, so I’ll take that as evidence you mostly align with me in disliking the man, and perhaps even for not totally different reasons. On that point, I’ll conclude my remarks here and stalk…I mean visit another thread later.

  • You do have a colleague here who sees fit to mention my federal voting record, even on threads in which politics is not in the tag.

    When you claim to be a “Catholic” and yet vote for the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, I have to bring that up so people understand that you’re just a Catholic-In-Name-Only.

    Hence innocent Catholic’s won’t be strayed from their faith because of your lies, innuendo’s, and false interpretations of Catholicism.

    We aim to evangelize Catholics here at TAC and will disallow you from misleading them.

  • Todd has become increasingly angry and bitter in the last couple years (and seems to take undue opportunity to needle conservative Catholics), and I think it shows very poor judgement (including moral judgement) to think that Obama was worthy of a vote in the last election, but I don’t think that it is correct or appropriate to label Todd a “Catholic-in-name-only” for that reason.

  • “Donald, there’s a significant and logical difference between my visiting your site and selectively posting on topics of interest, and your practice of responding to practically every one of my posts here.”

    When anyone posts in one of my threads Todd I will normally respond eventually, although time constraints and laziness on my part sometimes prevent me from doing so. Additionally if someone else in the thread has made the point I was going to make I normally don’t bother.

    “Though to be fair, you pretty much post anywhere you disagree with one of your visitors.”

    Not really, but a bit of hyperbole goes with commenting in comboxes. Usually I won’t post in other threads unless I have a strong interest in the topic or my name comes up.

    “On that point, I’ll conclude my remarks here and stalk…I mean visit another thread later.”

    Feel free to stalk…I mean visit here, as much as you wish. I agree with you on little, although we share a similar distaste of Cardinal Mahoney, but you conduct yourself within the bounds of blog decorum and I have no problem with your visits whatever our sparring, something we of course have been doing since the Welborn Open Book days. (How swiftly time passes!)

  • I agree with Darwin that I would not call Todd a Catholic In Name Only. Beyond a distaste for attempting to judge the sincerity of someone else’s religious committment, I do not think it accurate in his case. I might call him, because of his vote, a Pro-lifer In Name Only, but I do not know if Todd claims to be part of the pro-life movement.

  • How can a Catholic who know’s his faith vote for the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history?

  • Darwin and Don,

    Words matter and I believe that you two are correct. After sleeping on it I should not have labeled Todd as a “Catholic-In-Name-Only”.

    A much more precise label would have been more accurate, but not charitable to say the least.

    I won’t refer to him this way again.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,


  • DRM,
    How exactly is it that one becomes a pro-lifer in name only without meriting at the same moment the appellation “Catholic in Name Only?”

    Pro-abortion baptised Christians come in only one flavor, regardless of the “denomination” they choose to attend services in; protestant.

  • Actually Kevin some of the most fervent pro-lifers I know are protestants. I have a personal distaste for passing on the religious committment of others, and I do not like going beyond what I think the evidence shows me.

  • Kevin:

    I think you mean that once you dissent from the Church’s teachings you cease to be Catholic and become a Protestant.

    That said, I think Donald was right to point out that the way you wrote it could be interpreted very negatively by our Protestant brethren who do a lot for the service of life.

A New Bishop for Los Angeles

Monday, April 5, AD 2010

Whispers in the Loggia and New Advent have exciting breaking news for the church in the US:

Pope Benedict will name Jose Gomez, 58, archbishop of San Antonio since February 2005, as coadjutor-archbishop of Los Angeles.

In the process, the native of Mexico — the lone American bishop professed as a numerary (full member) of Opus Dei — will make history, becoming the first Hispanic prelate placed in line for a Stateside red hat.

The appointment would bring to a close several months’ worth of intense consultation and speculation since word of Cardinal Roger Mahony’s request for an understudy began circulating late last year. A coadjutor will first spend some months learning the ropes alongside the 74 year-old cardinal before succeeding to the helm of the 5 million member local church — its Catholic population estimated to be three-quarters Latino — shortly after Mahony reaches the retirement age of 75 next February 27th.

Born in Monterrey and ordained for Opus Dei in 1978, Gomez served in Texas from 1987 in both Houston and San Antonio. A former executive director and president of the National Association of Hispanic Priests, in 2001 Pope John Paul II named him an auxiliary to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, then rocketed him into the lone senior US post customarily held by a Latin cleric on his appointment to San Antonio in late 2004. Six months after his installation there, TIME magazine named Gomez one of the nation’s 25 most influential Hispanics.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to A New Bishop for Los Angeles

As Our Modern, Western Culture Begins To Implode, The Catholic Church Is Our Last, Best Hope

Sunday, January 31, AD 2010

Channel surfing the other night, I came across a slew of 1980s “coming of age” movies on cable television. With all of their flaws (too much sexual innuendo, which is mild by today’s comparisons,) one can easily see a positive theme of a bright future and endless possibilities running through this genre of films. I had almost forgotten that in the 1983 film Valley Girl, Julie played by Deborah Foreman actually chastises her hippy parents for their suggestion that if she and her new boyfriend Randy, played by Nicholas Cage, want to explore their sexuality it would be alright by them.  Julie rebukes her parents for having such beliefs as well as the nostalgia surrounding their involvement in the 1960s anti war movement; after all it was the era of Ronald Reagan. Everything seemed possible; it was Morning in America again. Many of these movies were set in California which at the time exuded excitement for those of us growing up in colder, Midwest climates. Economically, California was booming and it was also the heart of a growing and diverse music scene.

Fast forward some 25+ years later and many of today’s films have a dark undercurrent with more than a little subtle leftwing political and cultural propaganda running through them. While there are certainly hopeful signs in Hollywood, especially with the advent of stars like Eduardo Verastegi and his movie Bella and associated Metanoia Films, (Click here for my interview with Eduardo Verastegui,) the secular film industry has fallen even farther into the cesspool. Sadly the Golden State’s economic boom seems but a distant memory, which was bound to occur when California’s Big Government mentality rivaled that of Sweden or the Canadian province of Quebec. The bigger question remains; is California setting the trend once again for the nation and the western world, and if it is what hope is there? The hope remains as it always has not in mortal man and the latest left wing hypothesis about the world’s failings, but in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to As Our Modern, Western Culture Begins To Implode, The Catholic Church Is Our Last, Best Hope

  • Pingback: The Coming Open Rebellion Against God « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Lent 2010; The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholic Orthodoxy « The American Catholic
  • Fulton Sheen said that the time of evil would come upon mankind. Pope John Paul said a great darkness has descended on the earth. And we are living in this age of darkness and evil made transparent . The light of Christ is shining so brightly now that all of mens hearts and actions are coming into the light and being exposed for who and what they are. This is a great time of purification and God is getting ready to move mankind into a very important direction. You are either with Christ or against Him, There will be no middle ground. That is why it seems that it is all imploding but what is really happening is a time of great grace before the time of great judgement!

  • Man, where have I been for not finding your web site earlier – loved every word spoken.

    will be e-mailing you later brother. Praise Christ for you taking a stand and speaking His truth. We are so hungry for JUST the truth. Fr. John Corpie tells it like it is – and there is standing room only when he speaks somewhere. Holy Mother Church needs to feed her sheep – I am so tired of shim milk. Where is the beef that I may feed on the deep things of God.

    God bless brother – Later.

    In Christ,

If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Has Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters)

Monday, January 25, AD 2010

There is a undercurrent in American society that somehow believes that if the mafia ran things, the country would be better off. There was one city (Newark, New Jersey) where the mafia once controlled much of the city. When their grip on power was done, the city was in tatters. The same could be said for liberals running religion.

Continue reading...

40 Responses to If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Has Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters)

L.A. Cathedral Safe From Wildfires

Monday, August 31, AD 2009

Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral seems to be safe for now from the raging wildfires in Santa Barbara north of Los Angeles and from Orange County which is south of Los Angeles, both approximately 30 miles away.  Sadly two LA Cathedral tabernaclefirefighters have lost their lives in service to Angelinos.

Maps of the wildfires are temporarily out of service as servers have been overloaded for the Los Angeles Times, Google Maps, and Associated Content.

From the pictures it looks like all hell has broken loose.  Smoke continues to envelope major sections of Los Angeles and the fluorescent red light from said wildfires give an eery glow to the landscape.

The beautiful architecture of Our Lady of Angels is at risk of destruction from these wildfires.  The Cathedral’s exterior echoes the Famsa Warehouse District with its soaring brownish brick buildings and rectangular gray-stained windows.  The Plaze of the Cathedral resembles that of your local community college with directionless paths and no shading.

The treasure trove of art that this Cathedral holds is breath-taking.  Where else can you find non-Christian imagery than that on the giant bronze doors depicting images from pre-Christian Europe.  These giant bronze doors are conveniently located away from the LA Cathedral dragon massnarthex.  Neo-post-Christian artists such as Robert Graham decorated the door with an unveiled Mary showing her bare arms welcoming people to come in for happy-clappy Masses and liturgical dances.

Once your inside and find your way to the “church” you can marvel at the hand-crafted tabernacle sculptured by Max DeMoss.  Mr. DeMoss designed the tabernacle to blend with the the rest of the architectural style of the cathedral which is delightfully tacky, yet unrefined.

As you turn around from those three deteriorating pipes sticking out of the ground called the tabernacle you can view LA Cathedral jugs of juicethe complete interior of the Cathedral of the Angels.  Imagine one of those special liturgical celebrations as a Chinese dragon parades up and down the kneelerless rows with Cardinal Mahony waiting in the wings with pitchers of Jesus waiting to be distributed among the faithful.

What priceless treasures that this Cathedral holds that may well be burned to the ground along with the post-neo-Christian architecture.

One can only pray.


All information for this posting was done entirely from the Our Lady of Angels Cathedral website.

Pictures courtesy of Quintero from L.A. Catholic.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to L.A. Cathedral Safe From Wildfires

  • Do I detect w wee bit of sarcasm, or a whole symphony????

  • “kneelerless rows”?

    I can assure you that there are indeed kneelers there, and they are used, or at least they were when I was there and Cardinal Mahony instructed everyone to kneel for the Eucharistic prayer.

  • Alan,

    The first few rows have no kneelers.

  • First few rows? Maybe the very first row. There are some pews on the sides of the sanctuary area that do not have kneelers, but the pews throughout the nave have kneelers.

  • Alan,

    Next time I will be more specific how many rows are missing kneelers.

    The point is that the Cathedral contains kneelerless rows, among many other disturbing things that it contains, as representative of how off the rails Cardinal Mahony has guided the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

  • http://www.catholicmil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1018&catid=68

    Monday, 08 May 2006 00:00
    My daily Masses, when I am not traveling, are held in a very small Blessed Sacrament Chapel, which is off to one wing of the large chapel/theater we have here in Fallujah. The place can accomidate 10-11 people.

    It has benches along three sides, a field altar in the center, and a tabernacle on the fourth wall, mounted on a wooden platform. Nothing fancy, but it is more than most places have, so I am more than satisfied.

    The floor is stone tile.

    One day I commented during my homily that maybe we should get foam rolls from Supply to kneel on.

    After Mass my collection of one enlisted sailor, two Navy officers (doctors both), one enlisted Marine, and four Marine officers had a quick huddle.

    As one of the officers was bringing in some of the gear from the Mass back to the sacristry/confessional/storage area (we make the best use of our spaces over here), he remarked that the group had decided that the pads were not needed.

    When I asked why not, he replied:

    “Real men kneel on stone.”

    This is my parish.

  • Pingback: la wildfires
  • Could the aisles without kneelers be specifically for the handicapped?

  • If I remember correctly, the side pews along the sanctuary are somewhat more elevated and awkward, so I’m not sure that would be ideal for the handicapped. There is room for the handicapped in the general nave area, which is the general seating (and kneeling) area.

  • When I was stationed in Spain I would go to the base chapel for daily Mass. Plenty of kneelers there. But on Saturday went in town at a chapel that was probably 200+ years old. Lots of old ladies and me. No kneelers. Stone floors. Good to see the Navy and Marines haven’t changed.

Day 2: Reaction To The Passing Away Of Ted Kennedy Around The Catholic World

Thursday, August 27, AD 2009

Ted Kennedy young

Day II of what Catholics are saying on the passing away of Edward Moore Kennedy around the web (will be continuously updated until tonight at 7:00 pm CST):

A Catholic Funeral for Ted Kennedy by Dr. Edward Peters of Canon Law

A Catholic Funeral for Ted? It’s a Lie, a Sham, a Scandal, a Pretense, an Insult to faithful Catholics by Robert Kumpel of St. John’s Valdosta Blog

Dissident Catholic America magazine doesn’t want to talk about Ted Kennedy’s stance on abortion and trashes Patrick Madrid by Father John Zuhlsdorf of What Does The Prayer Really Say?

Who can have a Catholic Funeral & more by Elizabeth Scalia of The Anchoress via First Thoughts

Continue reading...

One Response to Day 2: Reaction To The Passing Away Of Ted Kennedy Around The Catholic World

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-4-2009

Wednesday, March 4, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Due to popular acclamation I’m returning back to using Latin in my column title (mostly).  I think I’ve settled on a format so thanks for bearing with me.  I’ve wanted to do this type of column for a while and I believe I found the right balance, now if I can only be consistent in my posting.  So here we have today’s Top Seven Picks in the Catholic world:

1. Catholic News Agency has reported that a coalition of American Catholics calling themselves Catholic Advocate led by Deal W. Hudson have created a website opposing President Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, pro-abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  The website is called www.catholicsagainstsebelius.org.  Governor Kathleen Sebelius is a dissident Catholic notorious for her direct and explicit support of abortionist George Tiller “the Killer”, whose known for executing late term abortions of innocent children.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has met and counseled Governor Kathleen Sebelius on several occasions on her pro-abortion stance and has asked her to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.  However Governor Kathleen Sebelius has refused to obey and has openly opposed the good archbishop on these points.  Here is the link: http://www.catholicsagainstsebelius.org/

2. Kevin Knight (of New Advent) somehow found a little blurb buried in a long article that Newt Gingrich will soon convert to the Catholic faith as reported by the New York Times (7th paragraph on page 7 of the article ‘Newt. Again.’).

Updated: For a quick and eas(ier) read of the NY Times article go to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s blog here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/fmr-speaker-gingrich-to-become-catholic/

3. When I click on my browser to go to InsideCatholic.com their web page takes quite a long time to download relative to any other Catholic website or blog that I surf.  I don’t know if it’s all the links or dense code, but my best guess is that their Content Management System that they ar using, Joomla, may be the cause of the slowdown.  The second longest page in the Catholic web to download is Damian Thompson’s Holy Smoke, but you place the blame of the downloading delay to his employer London’s Daily Telegraph (which is the best english language newspaper in the world in my humble opinion).

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-4-2009

  • So good news all around in spite of the lingering chest cold that I expected to lick Tuesday but caused me 1.5 hours of sleep and more time off Wednesday. catholicsagainstsibelius is good stuff. Best to remind our pro-abort friends and family- so you support someone who has a good friend generally known as Tiller The Killer? Her Jeremiah Wright, so to speak? Meanwhile, delighted to see news that Newt is swimming the Tiber. Always thought he was at least three to five years ahead of his time and that politics was too confining for his talents. Perhaps more like him will do the backstroke as well. Meanwhile let’s make life really miserable for La Sibelius. Might as well find some fun in these difficult times. Kaff, kaff.

  • I think Newt is sincere in his conversion.

    I also believe that he is probably the best man out there to represent the Republican party come 2012. He carries the baggage of leaving his 2nd wife while she was on her deathbed, but he has sincerely apologized for that. He certainly seems to have matured a lot since his days as Speaker of the House.

    I have a feeling that he is prepping for a run. But it’s only a feeling.

News & Notes for A.D. 3-3-2009

Tuesday, March 3, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

OK, I junked the whole Latin title since I figured it wasn’t coming across that well as to what I wanted to do with this bit.  So now I’m calling this particular column ‘News & Notes’ (for now).  Here is today’s Top Seven picks in the Catholic world:

1. A great new blog by Pat McNamara about Catholic history titled appropriately enough, McNamara’s Blog.  I’ve been thinking of starting something like this for the past three years, but never got around to it.  I’m happy to say that McNamara’s Blog has great short stories on famous and little known figures in Catholicism as well as stories on non-Catholics and how they interacted and viewed our beautiful Catholic faith.  Here is the link to McNamara’s Blog: http://irishcatholichumanist.blogspot.com/

Continue reading...

9 Responses to News & Notes for A.D. 3-3-2009